Regalado v. Regalado
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a 40-hectare fishpond developed by the deceased spouses Apolonio and Sofia Regalado, who possessed it since 1929. After their father's death, his children, including petitioners Pedro and Zanita Regalado and respondents, demanded partition of the fishpond. Petitioners, who were in possession of the entire property, repeatedly refused partition, requesting extensions to recoup their expenses in developing and recovering possession of the fishpond from third parties. This led to respondents filing a complaint for Partition of Real Estate, Accounting, Damages, and Appointment of a Receiver. 2. Procedural History: Respondents filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, which was raffled to Branch 8. The RTC issued an Order on July 26, 1995, granting the petition for the appointment of a receiver. Following a motion for reconsideration, the RTC issued an Order on August 14, 1995, holding the receivership issue in abeyance and setting the main case for trial. On November 28, 1997, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring the fishpond as common property, ordering its partition into nine equal parts, requiring petitioners to render an accounting of its produce from 1980, and ordering them to pay attorney's fees and costs, along with the appointment of a receiver. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on December 17, 1997. However, the RTC, in an Order dated January 14, 1998, denied due course to the appeal for failure to file a record on appeal and pay appellate court docket fees. Subsequently, respondents filed a Motion for Execution, which was granted, and an Entry of Judgment was made. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Relief from Order on March 10, 1998, which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated May 19, 1998. 3. The Petition: Petitioners, the spouses Pedro M. Regalado and Zanita F. Regalado, have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the RTC's Orders dated July 26, 1995, January 14, 1998, and May 19, 1998, as well as the Decision dated November 28, 1997. They argue that the RTC erred in granting the petition for receivership, in declaring the fishpond as common property, in ordering partition and accounting, and in denying their appeal and subsequent petition for relief. The petition contends that the RTC's denial of their appeal and petition for relief was based on a misapprehension of facts and law, and that their counsel's failure to file the record on appeal and pay fees was due to excusable negligence. However, the Supreme Court noted that the proper remedy for the denial of a petition for relief or dismissal of an appeal is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, the Court found no excusable negligence on the part of petitioners' counsel.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the order denying a petition for relief from judgment and an order dismissing an appeal. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioners' petition for relief from judgment. Whether the grounds cited by petitioners constitute excusable negligence warranting relief from judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The Court held that the proper remedy to assail an order denying a petition for relief from judgment or an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal is a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Even if the petition were treated as a Rule 65 certiorari, it would still fail for lack of an allegation of grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Court found no excusable negligence on the part of petitioners' counsel that would justify granting the petition for relief.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court reiterated that under Section 1(b) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an order denying a petition for relief from judgment or an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal is not appealable. The aggrieved party must instead file an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioners' resort to an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 was therefore the wrong procedural vehicle. This procedural misstep alone would warrant the dismissal of the petition. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court clearly delineate the available remedies for specific adverse orders, and adherence to these rules is crucial for the orderly administration of justice. Failure to choose the correct remedy can lead to the dismissal of the case, regardless of the merits of the substantive issues. On the denial of the petition for relief: The Court found no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that prevented petitioners from filing their Record on Appeal on time and paying the necessary appellate court docket and filing fees. The excuses offered by counsel—pressure of work and an office clerk's oversight—were deemed insufficient. Citing jurisprudence, the Court held that the volume and pressure of work do not constitute excusable negligence. Similarly, the failure of a clerk to inform counsel of an order, without more, is not considered excusable negligence, especially when the counsel had other means to be aware of court processes. The Court stressed that a petition for relief is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases where no other adequate remedy exists, and it cannot be used to revive a lost right to appeal due to inexcusable negligence. On excusable negligence: The Court defined excusable negligence as that which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. The circumstances presented by petitioners, such as the alleged inadvertence of a law clerk and the counsel's busy schedule, did not meet this standard. The Court reiterated its consistent rulings that such excuses are common subterfuges and do not qualify as excusable negligence. The failure to pay appellate court docket fees within the prescribed period is a ground for dismissal of the appeal, and the negligence of counsel in this regard is binding upon the client. The Court underscored that parties are bound by the acts of their counsel, and they must bear the consequences of their counsel's mistakes or oversights, as to allow otherwise would lead to endless litigation.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment or order denying an appeal, filed under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, requires the petitioner to demonstrate fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Mere pressure of work or inadvertence of a clerk does not constitute excusable negligence. Furthermore, a party is bound by the acts of their counsel, and cannot later seek relief due to counsel's mistakes or oversights.